Gunco Forums banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
[font=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=+2]How to be an illegal[/size][/font]
[font=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=+1]Mexico government publishes guide to assist border crossers[/size][/font]
[size=-1]Posted: January 2, 2005
5:26 p.m. Eastern

[/size] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times] [/font] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][font=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]
[size=-1] ? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com [/size] [/font] [/font]






[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The government of Mexico is raising eyebrows with a new comic book offering advice on how to cross the border into the U.S. illegally. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Called "The Guide for the Mexican Migrant," the 32-page book published by Mexico's Foreign Ministry uses simple language to offer information on safety, legal rights and living unobtrusively in America. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"This guide is intended to give you some practical advice that could be of use if you have made the difficult decision to seek new work opportunities outside your country," the book says, according to the Arizona Republic. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][/font] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Illustrations depict illegals wading into a river, trying to evade U.S. Border Patrol and crouching near a hole in a border fence. Immigrants are also shown hiking through the desert with rock formations similar to those in Arizona and being caught by an American agent. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Among the tips offered: [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Try to walk during times when the heat is not as intense"; [/font]
[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Salt water helps you retain your body's liquids. Although you'll feel thirstier, if you drink water with salt the risk of dehydration is much lower"; [/font]
<li>[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Thick clothing increases your weight when wet, and this makes it difficult to swim or float." [/font][font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]It also says if migrants get lost, they should follow train tracks or power lines. It warns of walking for days to reach towns or roads in the desert. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]If caught by Border Patrol, the book says, "Don't throw stones or objects at the officer or patrol vehicles because this is considered a provocation. Raise your hands slowly so they see you are unarmed." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]It also recommends not running away from agents in pursuit. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"It's better to be detained a few hours and repatriated to Mexico than to get lost in the desert," the guide states. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The book includes a disclaimer stating it doesn't promote crossing the border illegally, but it doesn't give information about legal steps to seek a U.S. visa. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Immigration-control groups are not thrilled about the guide. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"This is more than just a wink and a nod," Rick Oltman, Western field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told the Republic. "This is so transparent, this is the Mexican government trying to protect its most valuable export, which is illegal migrants." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]John Vincent, with Virginia-based Americans for Immigration Control, said, "It really looks like the Mexican government is encouraging illegal immigration. It shows the contempt that the Mexican government has for our laws." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The Mexican consul general of Phoenix, Carlos Flores Vizcarra, said the reality is many migrants will try to cross the border illegally, and the book appears to be a means of protection. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"This is nothing new. It's a way to put it in very simple terms so people will understand the risks," he told the paper. "The intention is out of concern for human rights. People are doing it anyway. We cannot ignore that there is a very big migration between our two countries, and people who are coming to work need to understand the risks." [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Humberto Morales, 22, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico now working as a day laborer in Phoenix, and says the guide seems to have a mixed message. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"On the one hand they seem to be saying, 'Don't cross,' but on the other hand they are saying, 'Cross.'" [/font]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,469 Posts
I see examples of this everyday. I know some of my students are illegals. But, we are not allowed to ask if they are from Mexico. I think Mexico would come apart at the seams if we could close our borders completely. I personally don't like the potential of a Marxist/Communist government coming to power just 4-5 miles from my house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
with bush saying 'russia ia our friend" at the same time that russia anounced they will help iran to build a nuclear facility.........then went on to say that "mexico is our friend" when he invited fox to the white house..........if bush thinks those countries are our friends, I sure hate to think what he considers to be a enemy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
W.T. Sherman said:
with bush saying 'russia ia our friend" at the same time that russia anounced they will help iran to build a nuclear facility.........then went on to say that "mexico is our friend" when he invited fox to the white house..........if bush thinks those countries are our friends, I sure hate to think what he considers to be a enemy.
One keeps his friends close, his enemies closer.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Strange Destiny said:
I personally don't like the potential of a Marxist/Communist government coming to power just 4-5 miles from my house.
Good thing Texas does not border California.

And, on a serious note:


Michelle Malkin:
2004 was a bonanza for terrorists slipping into the U.S.
By MICHELLE MALKIN

LOOKS LIKE 2004 was a good year for terrorists, violent gang members, law-breakers and fraud artists seeking safe haven in America. Let's reminisce:

The rise of MS-13. The savage El Salvador-based gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), has now penetrated more than a dozen states. In May, a Fairfax, Va., teenager had his fingers chopped off in an MS-13 machete attack. In November, Washington, D.C.-area police received warning that MS-13 is plotting to ambush and kill them when they respond to service calls. Active in alien, drug and weapons smuggling, MS-13 members in America have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, carjackings, extortions and rapes. The gang has also been linked to efforts to help al-Qaida infiltrate the U.S.-Mexico border.

The path of least resistance. Border Patrol officers and local investigative journalists in the Southwest reported on increasing numbers of Middle Eastern males entering illegally from Mexico. Muslim prayer books and Arabic diaries were discovered on "Terrorist Alley" in southern Arizona. Suspected al-Qaida operative Adnan Shukrijumah, a fugitive Saudi pilot who reportedly met with MS-13 earlier this year, is believed to be in Mexico.

In April, a suspected al-Qaida agent arrested in Queens, N.Y., revealed a scheme to smuggle terrorists across the U.S.-Mexico border. In July, two alert Border Patrol agents apprehended Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed at the McAllen (Texas) airport. She was carrying an altered South African passport, muddy jeans and dirty shoes. She confessed to having entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River. Court documents showed that she was on a government watch list and had entered the United States up to 250 times.

Upon news of Ahmed's arrest, intelligence experts reported that suspected terror agents are acquiring passports from South Africa and other non-suspect countries; flying to the al-Qaida-coddling "tri-border area" in South America; learning Spanish; traveling to Mexico; and doing the backstroke into America. Lawmakers in Texas warned that the feds are arresting and then releasing thousands of other suspected terrorists classified as "Other Than Mexicans" because of lack of jail space. President Bush said "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." I repeat: Neither do the Islamofascists.

Bungling Washington bureaucrats. In the skies, federal air marshals continue to be hampered by director Thomas Quinn's moronic "professional" dress code (no athletic socks or jeans allowed). Although he no longer oversees transportation security, underperformin' Norman Mineta remains in charge of the Department of Transportation, where he maintains an absolutist opposition to homeland defense profiling. And kowtowing to civil liberties Chicken Littles and Muslim lobbyists, the Bush administration canceled the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System out of fear of privacy and discrimination lawsuits.

In July, the Department of Homeland Security rebuked Border Patrol agents in Southern California for conducting interior enforcement sweeps because they did not bow down to the "sensitivities" of open-borders radicals. In September, DHS Border Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson stated publicly that it's "not realistic" for his own officers to try to do their jobs and deport law-breakers.

Morale among rank-and-file enforcement officers has plummeted. The botched Bernie Kerik DHS nomination and the refusal of the Bush administration to support common-sense immigration enforcement and secure identity measures in the "intelligence reform" bill (which ended up containing more non-intelligence than intelligence provisions) didn't help.

Amnesty, shamnesty. The year ended as it began, with President Bush dangling his abominable proposal to grant a mass governmental pardon to millions of illegal alien workers and their employers. First floated in January, the White House also pushed through a Social Security "totalization" program with Mexico, which will dispense billions of dollars to illegal alien workers who used counterfeit Social Security cards and stolen numbers to secure illegal jobs.

Announcement of the Bush plan led to a spike in illegal alien apprehensions at the border during the first three months of 2004 ? 25 percent higher compared with last year. Those are just the ones who got caught. T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told the Washington Times in April: "People were coming up to our agents and saying, 'Where do we sign up for that guest-worker program, or that amnesty?' Word travels like wildfire down there."

And around the world. The word is we're open. Wide open. What a way to ring in the new year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
I'm of very mixed feelings about this: I'd have to see the full text to get the overall context, but the extracts cited seem to be directed towards how not to die if you choose to make an illegal border crossing and how to not be an idiot when dealing with the Border Patrol.

I am a firm believer that existing immigration laws should be stringently enforced, but not a believer that illegals deserve to die in the desert, nor a believer that it's OK to throw rocks at the Border Patrol.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Since you would like to see business owners jailed for employing illegals, would you be in favor of the same for school administrators and teachers who look the other way about enrolling illegals in the schools?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
Since you would like to see business owners jailed for employing illegals, would you be in favor of the same for school administrators and teachers who look the other way about enrolling illegals in the schools?
First, please let's concede that your question doesn't have diddly to do with the thread topic - unless the pamphlet gives info on how to enroll you kid in an American school and doesn't just focus on how to not die and how to not give the Border Patrol a hard time.

And please note that I'm not necessarily in favor of business owners being jailed for employing illegal aliens. I don't think that the penalty for violating the Federal law that prohibits hiring illegal aliens calls for incarceration. I am in favor of enforcement of all laws that are in place to prevent illegal immigration, though, not just that one. What puzzles me is why it seems to be OK to not enforce that one, which is designed to prevent attracting illegal aliens in the first place.

That said...

I don't know that the problem is school administrators and teachers turning a blind eye to illegals in the classroom. I think - but am not sure - that the responsiblity rests not with the school administrator nor with the teacher, but with school boards and state legislators: School boards that have adopted policies that illegal aliens will be admitted to public schools within the school district, and/or state legislators who have adopted laws requiring that illegal aliens be admitted to public schools within the state. Wondering if "No Child Left Behind" has provisions imposing a Federal requirement to admit illegal aliens to public schools, don't know.

Anyway, my immediate reaction is to vote the bums out.

It's a thorny question at the state level, though, when coupled with Federal actions that allow, if not actively encourage, illegal immigration. If Ohio is flooded with illegal aliens because the Feds wouldn't enforce Federal immigration laws, Ohio then ends up having to deal with them. The question for Ohio, then, is to decide whether - since the Feds aren't going to deport them - Ohio is better off with a bunch of illiterate ignorant illegal alien kids or with a bunch of literate educated ones. Best option, of course, would be that Ohio didn't have any - but if the Feds do nothing, I don't think Ohio has the power (let alone the money) to deport the illegals back to where they came so they're stuck with them. And may decide that literate educated illegal aliens are less of a liabilty to Ohio than illiterate ignorant ones.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Don't check records so they work, get off welfare and avoid starvation and the left wants you hung out to dry as a lawbreaker.

Don't check records so they can enroll in school and you are doing a public service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
How funny that it has come to be that my calling for consistent enforcement of the law is taken as the hallmark of a leftie!

And, I should note, accurately so: Which says some rather uncomplimentary things about conservatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
No, you just don't believe in equal protection.
Chasing illegals around in the desert to arrest them for illegal entry while scofflaw employers hire illegals with impunity is equal protection?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Corporate business vs. education industry.



Birthright Citizenship

The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 200,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.

"Anchor Babies"
The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.

While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.

Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as 'anchors' to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Even I think that the policy of according US citizenship to anyone born on US soil at the very least needs to be re-examined: It probably made complete sense when it was adopted.

Still haven't a clue what you mean about my not believing in equal protection, though.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Fourteenth Amendment Debate

Birthright citizenship is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was originally enacted to ensure civil rights for the newly freed slaves after the Civil War. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

A serious and scholarly debate has been on-going for years about whether illegal aliens (and temporary visitors) are, in fact, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Some scholars insist that the phrase has no real meaning of its own, but rather is essentially another way of saying "born in the United States." They believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires that any child born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship. Other scholars look to the legal traditions observed by most courts, including the presumption that all words used in a legislation are intended to have meaning (i.e., not simply be restatements) and that, if the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear or ambiguous, the congressional debate over the legislation may indicate the authors' intent. These scholars therefore presume that "subject to the jurisdiction" means something different from "born in the United States," so they have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil.

The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already." Sen. Howard said that "this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, who was the only Democrat to participate in the Senate debate, was even more explicit about the meaning of the jurisdiction requirement: ?[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.? Sen. Johnson's reading of the jurisdiction requirement also is consistent with our naturalization requirements.

Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required.

In light of these and other statements made during the Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears clear that the authors intended only to grant citizenship to persons born here who were also "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They understood that phrase to have the same meaning as the phrase "and not subject to any foreign Power," included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which these same Senators had earlier drafted. And by "subject to the jurisdiction," they meant "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense," and "[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else."

It would be difficult to argue that illegal aliens and temporary visitors are "not subject to [a] foreign [p]ower" or that they do not "ow[e] allegiance to anybody" but the United States. The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue. The closest it has come is a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen. In the absence of a ruling by the Supreme Court, it will remain up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or to accept the status quo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Very interesting post, Custer. Thanks.

Although, if the intent of the 14th Amendment wasn't to grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil, it shouldn't have said precisely that. I see two options:
1. A constitutional amendment; or
2. Establish a network of Mexican embassies with a birthing center in each.

Curious...

When a foreign national gives birth to a child on US soil, does the child have dual citizenship if the laws of the nation the mother came from provide for children of its citizens to be citizens regardless of where the child is born? More generally, can a US citizen also be a citizen of another country? I've heard of folks having dual citizenship, but never about a US citizen having it.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I happen to think the Constitution is poorly drafted. You could blame some of it on the style of the time, but since most current legal documents are poorly written, it can't all be blamed on that alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Yeah. There's an example here in Nevada.

The way "firearm" is defined is such that a bb-gun is a firearm. One of any number of poor dumb slobs doing time in Nevada for felon-in-possession when the firearm was a Daisy appealed on the basis that a bb-gun obviously isn't a firearm - and the court ruled that basicly the law's the law, a deal's a deal, and if the legislature wants to fix it they're gonna have to fix it. In the meantime get back in that cell.

My understanding is that had there been something in the record to show that defining a bb-gun as a firearm clearly wasn't the legislative intent he could have won his appeal, but in the absence of that he was stuck. I noted that your post on the 14th Amendment largely spoke to trying to elucidate legislative intent.

While it hasn't been taken to court (yet), seems to me that a spud-gun is also a firearm under Nevada law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Blame our government. The ability to round up and deport illegal immigrants was demonstrated by Operation ******* in the 1950s which retutned 1 1/2 million illegals in a 3 month period.

Frankly, it's stupid for the Mexican government to publish comic books about illegal emmigration from its borders. What say the liberals? Sould we simply abolish our borders, as advocated by George Soros, or should we protect them?

Looks to me that greedy people like the notion of having illegal workers whom they can cheat out of required wages, insurance, and working conditions. It is capitalism which drives illegal immigration, aided by the government's decision to allow Mexicans peons to serve American masters illegally.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
What about the capitalism in Mexico?

Why does that not attract people or at least keep them there?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top